Yeah, there's a difference between good ideals and really *stupid* ideals.

Ideally, telling the truth all the time seems like a neat idea. In reality, it's not. Any 6 year old learns that lesson pretty quickly. Shockingly enough, a similar principle is at play in the world of international diplomacy.

What the hell does any of this have to do with the responsibility or irresponsibility of wikileaks in this *particular* matter? Or do you simply believe that, because some governments abuse secrecy, there can be absolutely, unequivocally, no grounds for secrecy, and that therefore WLs is not, and never will be, responsible for the consequences of their actions?

Sure, they can fuck up. But they would have to kill millions of people and subvert dozens of democracies to start to match the misery caused by secret dealings by the State Department and the Executive Branch.

And therefore it's fine when WLs is irresponsible?

Come on, be realistic, here. Government secrecy is often a bad thing, and very frequently abused. But how can you possibly argue that's the case, here?

And in case you didn't notice, I'm not saying *everything* WLs has done is bad. I'm specifically saying they fucked up *in this case*. That maybe, just maybe, there are times when making something public is *worse* than keeping it secret.

Unfortunately, many people around here can't seem to comprehend that concept... I can only assume those people haven't seen that deeply philosophical Jim Carrey film, "Liar Liar".

Hint: in general, "bloodthirsty dictators" aren't "[supported]" or "[empowered]" by the people they rule over.

As an aside, while I'm often the first to support some degree of moral relativism, your post is just ridiculous. Values may vary from culture to culture, but some things are absolute... murder and rape are the first that come to mind, but I'm sure (well, I hope) you can come up with a few more.

* This is not the first time Mugabe has had Tsvangirai charged with treason
* The sanctions placed on Zimbabwe are "smart sanctions" against specific members of ZANU (PF) (Mugabe's party) and their personal interests
* The state media in Zimbabwe consistently blame the country's economic hardships on the sanctions, which is clearly preposterous - but fools a lot of people who have no access to alternative media
* There is likely to be an election in the next 6 months, and this is mostly a ploy to sabotage it
* If it wasn't for Wikileaks, something else equally infuriating would undoubtedly have happened anyway (i.e. political turmoil in Zimbabwe is hardly collateral damage of cable gate)

Only the last one is really directly related to WLs actions. But I fail to see how that can be used as an excuse for WLs releasing this information. Is it probable Mugabe and his thugs would've come up with something else? Yeah. But they didn't have to. WL made Mugabe's job incredibly easy.

As such, how does that last point absolve them of responsibility, exactly? And what, exactly, was great about WLs releasing information damaging to the work of reformers in Zimbabwe?

I need to explain this? Your position is basically "meh, the people can sort it out for themselves". That's functionally equivalent to "turning a blind eye" to what's going on in Zimbabwe, just phrased a little less favourably (and, frankly, I think a little more honestly).

Suspicious of what? That I happen to disagree with many here who would blindly excuse all actions by WLs, even when it appears clear their actions have resulted in negative consequences? Suspicious that, *shock*, some people might actually agree with that view? What, you think all people who criticize WLs must be government agents? Please.

Sorry, buddy, if that goes against your precious narrative, but I happen to hold a somewhat more nuanced view of WLs than your average Slashbot. Are they evil? No. Do they have a political agenda? I don't think so. Do I support the concept of government transparency? Of course. Do I believe governments can be completely and totally transparent without negative consequences. *NO*.

But, unfortunately, that kind of position is far too complex. It's far easier to blindly demonize or unquestionably praise WLs. It's a lot harder to actually fucking *think* about these issues for a few minutes.

Funny how we shift the blame here. And funny how no mention is made of the fact that all the diplomatic cables were redacted by the five newspapers Assange pre-released the cables to. No, it is not Mugabe or the papers who are to blame here, it is that rapist Assange again. The spin and manipulation seem so blatant to me, so orchestrated, that it amazes me how few people seem to notice the man behind the curtain.

So, in your world, Mugabe can't be an ass while wikileaks is simultaneously irresponsible?

Does all your reasoning fall back on false dichotomies, or just this one time?

Blame the transgressors. This shouldn't be some fringe extremist concept.

If two men stand are standing over another, and the first man hands the gun to the second, and the second pulls the trigger, both are to blame.

Wikileaks has handed Mugabe the gun. To claim they are blameless in this is, frankly, ridiculous.

Honestly, the apologists here are amazing. First, the claim is "well, wikileaks hasn't hurt anyone yet". Now we have a black-and-white example of information released by wikileaks resulting in negative consequences, and suddenly it's "well, really it's not their fault, and anyway, information should be free!"

Regrettably, other countries have the right to exist and to do things their way - meaning, in a way not pleasing to the United States.

Jesus Christ, "not pleasing to the United States"? What the fuck is wrong with you? Mugabe's contemporaries are Stalin, Mao, and Hitler. He's not some poor misunderstood soul that the US is out to get. The man is a butcher and a madman.

Either Mugabe is a rightful head of state and should be respected as such, or we should 'honestly' and openly invade.

So those are the only two options. To acknowledge the dictator, or roll in with the military.

Genius.

You should be running American foreign policy with an attitude like that.

Maybe it should be up to the people to decide. If the country's best hope for democracy was himself willing to lie to his own constituency and essentially sacrifice them for his greater good, maybe he wasn't all that much of a reformer to begin with.

That certainly worked well for the Nazis, the Taliban, countless African dictatorships, Tibet, North Korea... Yes, turning a blind eye, this is a good plan I'm sure.